I still get the impression, though, that Libertarianism needs to be mixed heavilly with other schools of thought in order to actually function.

A relatively accurate idea, in my opinion.

Libertarianism, arguably, could be seen as a concept, rather than a working political doctrine. Other doctrines may make use of it, but Libertarianism itself, in it's purest form, could be seen as simply holding individual freedom as the penultimate "good".

I think that's where we're having a disconnect, then, because, in American discourse at least, it gets treated very much as a political doctrine in and of itself, and the WAY it gets twisted into a political doctrine is . . . not flattering.

Well really, in America everything simply gets "labeled" into one giant thing. Libertarians, Feminists, Christians, Democrats, Tea Party, Gamer, Jock, etc. The media helps over-emphasize things to the point that what we get is a simple linear thing that can fit in a paragraph definition. Sects, individuality, or anything else of that matter? Nope. Straight label.

I agree... 'Murica!

Rune wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that there are other philosophies that seem to offer the same benefits as libertarianism that I do like, that are still better equipped to handle those kinds of social problems and offer social benefits that libertarianism does not seem equipped to address.

And because of that is where I enjoy believe I can support a group, in part and still also feel support for other groups that I find ideal in other areas. The truth is though, any one label in America, thanks to being the way we said above, will change. Look at Republicans now vs 20 years ago. The Neo-Republicans that are more imperialists than their original option which was actually quite libertarian and believed in no foreign intervention or preemptive war as a group. (That doesn't sound anything like what they are) Yet people still support them that don't even believe in the ideas expressed in the party. Because..."IT'S US VS THEM MAAAAAAAN!!" If you're not supporting Republican, you're a communist, socialist, baby killing, family destroying Democrat! I hate our stupid manipulative system that pits people into 2 sides._________________

If the federal government's attempt at charity has been a dismal failure, private efforts have been much more successful. America is the most generous nation on earth. We already contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity. However, as we phase out inefficient government welfare, private charities must be able to step up and fill the void.

To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.

Its not that they want people to fend for themselves without a social safety net, just not one provided by the government. They think much of the responsibility should be transferred to charities that provide social welfare services, and encourage donations to these charities through tax credits.

I like the sound of that approach, but I think there still needs to be a temporary government safety net that helps provide education and job placement programs, since I don't think charities can do it all alone.

oops, yeah i did not read the other sections, and i should have read the whole page *becomes embarrassed*

ya i dont agree with them but thats a lot different than how i interpreted it 😕

thanks for clarifying and ill try not to jump to conclusions next time😳

It has been a while since I have been on this forum and since I read this comic, precisely because of the reasons the original poster laid out. For a while this comic had an interesting plot because it was all aspects of life, not just radfem dribble. I believe women have the right to choose any role they see fit, whether it be a more traditional role or a more independent one. I've had a few girlfriends that ran the whole spectrum of their feelings on feminism, from my first girlfriend being a rad fem to the total opposite.

Now this might blow your minds, but I had a girlfriend once who was the opposite of a radfem, she took on positions that made me feel a bit uncomfortable, in that she felt that women shouldn't vote. She wanted a mans man. She said she wanted a taken in hand relationship, which I had no idea what it was until she showed me. I want to see what your opinions are on women that prefer men in a position of control with most people on these forums being mostly social justice warrior types.

It has been a while since I have been on this forum and since I read this comic, precisely because of the reasons the original poster laid out. For a while this comic had an interesting plot because it was all aspects of life, not just radfem dribble. I believe women have the right to choose any role they see fit, whether it be a more traditional role or a more independent one. I've had a few girlfriends that ran the whole spectrum of their feelings on feminism, from my first girlfriend being a rad fem to the total opposite.

Now this might blow your minds, but I had a girlfriend once who was the opposite of a radfem, she took on positions that made me feel a bit uncomfortable, in that she felt that women shouldn't vote. She wanted a mans man. She said she wanted a taken in hand relationship, which I had no idea what it was until she showed me. I want to see what your opinions are on women that prefer men in a position of control with most people on these forums being mostly social justice warrior types.

Women have complete freedom to chose whatever they prefer in the developed part of the world, as they chose, they also have complete gender equality, and, if any discrimination happens, it is punished by law (which is quite effective were I live at least).

So called radical feminists are tiny but radical sectarian minority, which is not so different from traditionalists they claim to oppose: both of them believe that women have no right and are not in the right mind to chose what they chose, only one path is right: the one which they perceive as such. In truth, of course, different people and different women have different character, which means that different things are desirable for them; different things mean happiness for them.

Speaking of the girlfriends, this also reminds me of one of mine. An incredibly ambitious, independent and talented. At the age of 23 she was already a chief economist of a major aeronautics R&D company. Not a feminist, of course, but with a will and a lifestyle that would never bend to someone else's liking or comfort. And there is a woman, a well known internet freak in my national segment of the web: alcoholic, unemployed, and very, very radical feminist.

In conclusion, a very good indication of a viability of any political and social movement is the quality of its membership. If successful and prominent persons are its activists (and if the majority of them are) you can be sure that it has potential (will probably succeed). Otherwise, you may know it to be inconsequential sect.

My opinion on women that 'prefer men in positions of control' is that they're allowed to want whatever the hell they want, right up until they start impeding the rights of others.

By 'others' I mean both women who want to be independent of men, and men who want women 'in positions of control' whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. As well as people who don't define themselves by either gender and just want to get on with their lives._________________Samsally the GrayAce

Speaking of the girlfriends, this also reminds me of one of mine. An incredibly ambitious, independent and talented. At the age of 23 she was already a chief economist of a major aeronautics R&D company. Not a feminist, of course, but with a will and a lifestyle that would never bend to someone else's liking or comfort. And there is a woman, a well known internet freak in my national segment of the web: alcoholic, unemployed, and very, very radical feminist.

In conclusion, a very good indication of a viability of any political and social movement is the quality of its membership. If successful and prominent persons are its activists (and if the majority of them are) you can be sure that it has potential (will probably succeed). Otherwise, you may know it to be inconsequential sect.

I'm not sure what your point is. You knew a radfem once and now you know something about the movement based on the character of one person? That you knew a successful person who "of course" was not a feminist and who was successful? What does any of this mean?

Sometimes I wish I could force people to join a class called, "Dogen Teaches Rational Argumentation for the Internet: Correlation is Not Causation, and Not Everything Is A Logical Fallacy."_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman